Nobody seems to be getting the point. Therefore, we will consider a purely hypothetical situation because it is safe to discuss. INTRODUCTION Imagine a hypothetical planet. We will call it Earth. Earth is dominated by a hypothetical country called America. E for Earth. A for America. GIVEN Let us say there are certain acts of domination that are unethical. Let us call these unethical acts: Tyranny through terror and physical force/violence/massacre/deceit. This is shortened to the following term: Terrorism. Let us say such acts are not inevitable as natural, but completely unnecessary and impractical. This impracticality is subject to Planet E. This means that such actions (Terrorism) are impractical to the best interest of Planet E and its people. Let us say that Country A dominates Planet E through such unethical acts of tyranny. Terrorism. [This is similar to what America does to Earth in real life. But this is not the place to dispute that because Country A and Planet E are purely hypothetical for this discussion. Considering that this is a hypothetical situation regarding the hypothetical Planet E and Country A, the above givens are not up for dispute.] CHOOSE YOUR OWN ACTION Considering the above givens, there are 4 possible courses of action. The 4 possible actions are purely subjective. This means that these actions are not independent of any individual’s situation. They are completely subject to your particular situation. All people make decisions based on what is best for their situation. Some may not think or make the right decision. It is up to you to consider your current circumstance, and use your brain to make the logical decision that you see fit for your own situation. This decision is for your own situation, and NOT FOR everybody else’s situation. Not one of the decisions make the following denials: 1. Country A does not dominate Planet E through such unethical acts of tyranny. Terrorism. 2. Country A does dominate Planet E through such acts, but such acts are inevitable as natural. (It's an inevitable part of life.) [Neither of these 2 denials can be made because they contradict the givens.] A: DIRECT OPPOSITION B: COMPLETE EVASION C: COMPLETE SUBMISSION D: DIRECT PARTICIPATION A: DIRECT OPPOSITION I choose to directly oppose Country A in supporting efforts to end their Terrorism. At this point, I am in the position to choose this course of action as the most logical and feasible for my particular situation. B: COMPLETE EVASION I choose to completely evade Country A in active logical efforts to escape their Terrorism. At this point, I am in the position to choose this course of action as the most logical and feasible for my particular situation. C: COMPLETE SUBMISSION I choose to completely submit to Country A under their reign of Terrorism. At this point, I am in the position to choose this course of action as the most logical and feasible for my particular situation. D: DIRECT PARTICIPATION I choose to directly participate with Country A in supporting efforts to continue their Terrorism. At this point, I am in the position to choose this course of action as the most logical and feasible for my particular situation. -CS
As this is all 'purely hypothetical', we need more information on all the other countries/regimes on planet E and what the exact interplay between these countries and A involve. Otherwise forget the 'hypothetical' hype and just call it for what it is.
You forgot this option: I choose to do nothing because as a single unit I am not in a position to oppose, to evade, to submit or to participate. As single units we are at the mercy of our government and we cannot choose any option, they will choose for us.
Pretend the countries on this purely hypothetical Planet E are similar to that of real Earth under hypothetical Country A that uses its hypothetical super military power and hypothetical CIA to cause hypothetical terror in other hypothetical countries for their hypothetical total submission as natural resources and hypothetical factory laborers for hypothetical Country A.
I would say this is closest to submission. This is a personal action based on logic. Sure the government might force your submission no matter what action you choose, but your action response is a willful action that you choose. Submission is probably the closest to what you are saying.
Slight misuse of the word 'subjective': The closest definition to its usage here is (1), but an action being subject to the circumstances of a particular situation is not the same thing as being subjective. As the definition suggests, a subjective action takes place solely within one's mind. The actions considered in this scenario are of an objective nature. On the other hand, the judgment that the Terrorism of Country A is completely unnecessary and impractical is a subjective judgment that is only true for our intrepid colleague CS. For me, Terrorism allows my life to be easier and more comfortable at the expense of others who I neither know nor care about. It would only be natural to continue oppressing them; in fact, acting otherwise would be downright masochistic. I therefore endorse option D, the active participation in Random Acts of Violence to maintain fear and complacency within the inferior proletariat and countries less militarily and economically endowed than mine.
And logic enters into this... how? By the way. Your 'definition' of terrorism is flawed. And you provide no definition for 'tyranny'. Basically, your whole piece of 'logic' is nothing more than an appeal to emotion.
I would oppose such a hypothetical country, or if it was just the doing of a particular administration, I would oppose them. In reality, I oppose the Bush administration, but through peaceful political means, mostly because your characterization is overly simplistic and frankly, fanatical.
so tell me how does a single unit (bearing in mind you made it very clear we are to think of self only) oppose, evade an entire country who wishes to dominate you? Suicide? OR we become a suicide bomber We kill two birds with one stone, we avoid the tyranny while taking pop at opposing it.
It is not flawed, it is a given. A given cannot possibly flawed. It is given. You do not know what given means. Furthermore, the definition of tyranny is as given. Nothing else.
Good choice. Your rant on impracticality is irrelevant. The impracticality is a given. Not subject to anybody other than as given under this hypothetical.
Whatever action you take. A Response by fighting. B Response by running away. C Response by sitting there. D Response by joining. I don't think you get the point. It doesn't matter how you conduct your choice or what happens. It is what you feel would be the best course of your decision. You make a decision. When a police officer is beating you down, and cuffing you, you decide how you will act in that situation. What is the most logical "action"?
A given. But not enough of a given to make a rational choice. Instead, you simply link your 'hypothetical' to reality. However, your definition is flawed and if one aspect of your system does not connect with reality then a cascade of misconnections occur. Thus, you mix the pretense of a logical system with the emotional appeal of one's biases in the real world. Mixing frames at its worst.
I wish the US was really as bad as cool skill claims it is, so he'd be kidnapped, tortured, then executed. All in secret. But first they'd make him watch his family be tortured to death, too. Oh well. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Maybe we can send him to North Korea?
What are you talking about? Nobody linked it to reality. I simply said it was a hypothetical planet and country.
